gba777 login register mobile
gba777 login register mobile
Nick Kyrgios says positive tests for duo are ‘disgusting’ and ‘a horrible look’Quarterback Brock Purdy threw without pain Monday and 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan will wait until midweek to determine the progress of edge rusher Nick Bosa and left tackle Trent Williams. It remains to be seen who will and won’t be available when the 49ers embark on a cross country trip to face AFC East power Buffalo, currently 9-2 and the No, 2 seed in the conference. The 49ers are expected to get a practice lift with the activation of linebacker Dre Greenlaw, who will begin his 21-day window off injured reserve after offseason Achilles surgery after being injured in the Super Bowl. Cornerback Charvarius Ward, who worked with the scout team last week as he works through his grief following the loss of his 23-month-old daughter, may also begin getting work again with the first team. Are things actually looking up for the 49ers? One thing’s for sure is that the 49ers are looking up at everybody else in the AFC West but are still only a game out of first place with Seattle and Arizona at 6-5 and the 49ers and Rams at 5-6. It’s clear to Shanahan any pathway to the playoffs would be as a division title rather than as a wild card. “You look at the whole NFC picture and if you don’t win the division, 10-7 is not guaranteed to get in as a wild card by any means this year,” Shanahan told reporters during his weekly conference call. “That is why the Seattle game was so tough, and that’s why last night was even worse. “We know exactly what the playoff situation is, but really all that matters is this week when you do need to go on a run and put a lot of wins to even think of that, then you’d better be thinking of only one thing – and that’s Buffalo.” Should Purdy be unable to go, Shanahan said Brandon Allen would get a second start at quarterback. SNAP JUDGEMENTS 72: Safeties Ji’Ayir Brown and Malik Mustapha and middle linebacker Fred Warner played every defensive snap. 49: When Allen at quarterback and Jaylon Moore at left tackle play every snap (along with Colton McKivitz, Dominick Puni and Jake Brendel) then you know there’s a problem with injuries. And Allen and Moore were the least of their problems. 44: Leonard Floyd played 61 percent — about his usual number — even without Nick Bosa in the lineup. With 3 1/2 sacks in his last two games, he’s a half-sack behind Bosa fo the team lead. 33: Rookie wide receiver Ricky Pearsall Jr. played 67 percent of the snaps — the same as Deebo Samuel — and did not have a pass thrown his way. 21: Robbie Beal Jr. played a season-high number of snaps in Bosa’s absence at defensive end and did not appear on the stat sheet for having a tackle or an assist. 9: Running back Jordan Mason has played 14 snaps in three games since McCaffrey’s return and has six carries for 26 yards. 4: Tashun Gipson was promoted to the 53-man roster but still hasn’t played on defense in three games at safety. He had four special teams snaps against Green Bay. More to come on this breaking story . . .Main opposition PASOK rejected speculation over the weekend that it has agreed to raising the parliamentary entry threshold for smaller parties amid discussions of potential amendments to the electoral law. Socialist party leader Nikos Androulakis is said to have discussed potential modifications earlier this month in a meeting with conservative Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. “We are surprised to see reports suggesting that PASOK supports raising the entry threshold for parties in Parliament. These are unfounded scenarios, as the president of PASOK has publicly and unequivocally expressed its opposition to such a measure,” sources within PASOK said.
California to consider requiring mental health warnings on social media sites
In the wee hours Sunday at the United Nations climate talks, countries from around the world reached an agreement on how rich countries can cough up the funds to support poor countries in the face of climate change. It's a far-from-perfect arrangement, with many parties still unsatisfied but some hopeful that the deal will be a step in the right direction. World Resources Institute president and CEO Ani Dasgupta called it “an important down payment toward a safer, more equitable future,” but added that the poorest and most vulnerable nations are “rightfully disappointed that wealthier countries didn’t put more money on the table when billions of people’s lives are at stake.” The summit was supposed to end on Friday evening but negotiations spiraled on through early Sunday. With countries on opposite ends of a massive chasm, tensions ran high as delegations tried to close the gap in expectations. Here's how they got there: What was the finance deal agreed at climate talks? Rich countries have agreed to pool together at least $300 billion a year by 2035. It’s not near the full amount of $1.3 trillion that developing countries were asking for, and that experts said was needed. But some delegations said this deal is headed in the right direction, with hopes that more money flows in the future. The text included a call for all parties to work together using “all public and private sources” to get closer to the $1.3 trillion per year goal by 2035. That means also pushing for international mega-banks, funded by taxpayer dollars, to help foot the bill. And it means, hopefully, that companies and private investors will follow suit on channeling cash toward climate action. The agreement is also a critical step toward helping countries on the receiving end create more ambitious targets to limit or cut emissions of heat-trapping gases that are due early next year. It’s part of the plan to keep cutting pollution with new targets every five years, which the world agreed to at the U.N. talks in Paris in 2015. The Paris agreement set the system of regular ratcheting up climate fighting ambition as away to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. The world is already at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and carbon emissions keep rising. What will the money be spent on? The deal decided in Baku replaces a previous agreement from 15 years ago that charged rich nations $100 billion a year to help the developing world with climate finance. The new number has similar aims: it will go toward the developing world's long laundry list of to-dos to prepare for a warming world and keep it from getting hotter. That includes paying for the transition to clean energy and away from fossil fuels. Countries need funds to build up the infrastructure needed to deploy technologies like wind and solar power on a large scale. Communities hard-hit by extreme weather also want money to adapt and prepare for events like floods, typhoons and fires. Funds could go toward improving farming practices to make them more resilient to weather extremes, to building houses differently with storms in mind, to helping people move from the hardest-hit areas and to help leaders improve emergency plans and aid in the wake of disasters. The Philippines, for example, has been hammered by six major storms in less than a month, bringing to millions of people howling wind, massive storm surges and catastrophic damage to residences, infrastructure and farmland. “Family farmers need to be financed," said Esther Penunia of the Asian Farmers Association. She described how many have already had to deal with millions of dollars of storm damage, some of which includes trees that won't again bear fruit for months or years, or animals that die, wiping out a main source of income. “If you think of a rice farmer who depends on his or her one hectare farm, rice land, ducks, chickens, vegetables, and it was inundated, there was nothing to harvest,” she said. Why was it so hard to get a deal? Election results around the world that herald a change in climate leadership, a few key players with motive to stall the talks and a disorganized host country all led to a final crunch that left few happy with a flawed compromise. The ending of COP29 is "reflective of the harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in,” said Li Shuo of the Asia Society. He cited Trump's recent victory in the US — with his promises to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement — as one reason why the relationship between China and the EU will be more consequential for global climate politics moving forward. Developing nations also faced some difficulties agreeing in the final hours, with one Latin American delegation member saying that their group didn't feel properly consulted when small island states had last-minute meetings to try to break through to a deal. Negotiators from across the developing world took different tacks on the deal until they finally agreed to compromise. Meanwhile, activists ramped up the pressure: many urged negotiators to stay strong and asserted that no deal would be better than a bad deal. But ultimately the desire for a deal won out. Some also pointed to the host country as a reason for the struggle. Mohamed Adow, director of climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa, said Friday that “this COP presidency is one of the worst in recent memory,” calling it “one of the most poorly led and chaotic COP meetings ever.” The presidency said in a statement, “Every hour of the day, we have pulled people together. Every inch of the way, we have pushed for the highest common denominator. We have faced geopolitical headwinds and made every effort to be an honest broker for all sides.” Shuo retains hope that the opportunities offered by a green economy “make inaction self-defeating” for countries around the world, regardless of their stance on the decision. But it remains to be seen whether the UN talks can deliver more ambition next year. In the meantime, “this COP process needs to recover from Baku,” Shuo said. ___ Associated Press reporters Seth Borenstein and Sibi Arasu contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Notable quotes by Jimmy Carter
49ers: Brock Purdy throws without pain, while it’s wait-and-see for Bosa, WilliamsState Board of Education approves Bible-infused curriculum
The Ohio State Buckeyes thrashed the Indiana Hoosiers in their huge Week 13 matchup, with the final score settling in at 38-15. And after the game, there was shortage of trolling from the Buckeyes, which resulted in one of their social media posts quickly going viral. After Indiana opened the scoring with a touchdown, Ohio State proceeded to rattle off 31 unanswered points, before the two sides traded a pair of late touchdowns. The final score of the game, in particular, drew the ire of fans, as they accused Ryan Day of unnecessarily running up the score. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Buckeyes found a way to inflict more pain on the Hoosiers. After Indiana's head coach Curt Cignetti's "Google me" quote took the internet by storm earlier this season, Ohio State shared a post on X, formerly Twitter, with the two-word caption "GoogLed it" in response to Cignetti's message. GoogLed It. #GoBucks pic.twitter.com/JCpi2rwVf6 Indiana was a heavy underdog heading into this game, despite the fact they had yet to lose this season. That didn't stop Cignetti from talking some smack throughout the week, and while it looked like his team meant business early on, that quickly proved to not be the case. The stakes were high for both of these teams, as Ohio State was the No. 2 ranked team in the nation, and Indiana was No. 5. So considering how the Buckeyes picked up a dominant victory, it shouldn't come as much surprise that they are strutting their stuff in the wake of this one. © Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images With this win, Ohio State has further insulated themselves as the No. 2 in the AP Top 25 poll behind the Oregon Ducks. Indiana, meanwhile, will likely tumble down the rankings, as they didn't do much to get rid of the notion that they were only undefeated because of the weak schedule they have faced this season. The Buckeyes appear to be getting hot at the perfect time, as the regular season is coming to a close. They will finish things off in Week 14 against Michigan, where they will be hoping to pick up their 11th win of the season. Related: Ryan Day Issues Savage 5-Word Message After Controversial Late Touchdown vs. Indiana
There have been allegations by Kabul that Pakistani forces have carried out air strikes in the Barmal district of Afghanistan's Paktika province. Taliban's spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid has alleged that four locations in Barmal district had been target resulting in the death of 46 people. Pakistan's Foreign Office has, however, denied such allegations, instead saying that an intelligence-based operation has been carried out against terrorists in "border areas". Pakistan maintains that terrorist attacks emanating from across the border have been a grave threat. Just two days before the allegations of attack in Barmal, a group of heavily armed TTP militants had stormed a security outpost in South Waziristan that resulted in the martyrdom of 16 Pakistani soldiers. There is thus likelihood that this deadliest attack in recent months on Pakistani security forces may have triggered a military response. The allegations from Kabul also coincided with a high-level Pakistani political delegation sitting on the negotiating table with their Taliban counterparts in the Afghan capital to figure out the complexity of the issue of cross-border terrorism that surrounds and overshadows everything else between the relations of the two countries. In geopolitics, geography predominantly dictates the type of politics that any two states may engage in. For over four decades now, Pakistan has showcased a lackluster Afghan policy and the classic example of that is the current event - a day on which a political dialogue was held and allegation of air strikes surfaced simultaneously. Afghanistan has used asymmetric warfare to defeat two superpowers. History tells us that Afghans have proved time and again that small battle field victories by a much bigger enemy can be turned into strategic defeat. But we are not the enemy of Afghanistan, we are a brotherly country that not only shares border with them but their deep concerns also. Something is not right, for us to not have a workable Afghan policy - one that prevents us from accepting that Afghanistan is a sovereign state; and living under the yoke of Westphalian principles we must remain shackled as a state when it comes to initiating a military response. Has Afghanistan not proved that with them no kind of deterrence works specially deterrence by punishment as they are the people who don't stop hoping and willing to die? Pakistan's state response, though I haven't heard of it but I assume it will be based on the fact that doing nothing means capitulating to TTP's aggression and such a weakness would invite more attacks. But the big question is the right management of this asymmetric challenge emanating from Afghanistan. Should our response be through conventional military power on a sovereign country based on our assessment of any future threats developing from there? Striking a balance between defensive and offensive measures for managing asymmetric threat is not only a challenge for Pakistan but for the entire world in the 21st Century. In the case of Pakistan, it becomes more critical as it comes from a state with whom we share a huge border that is porous. I remember writing a few months ago about how Russia faced a similar threat from its south western region when it started expanding in the eastern region of Siberia in the early 20th Century. What Russia did was construct over 240 fortified outposts manned by Cossacks to prevent any infiltration towards their eastern border. That brought relief in the lives of locals who came back to the abandoned lands and started living a normal life. Not by punishment but denial we should also create the much-needed deterrence against the TTP threat emanating from Afghanistan. Military training teaches us that for any strategy that is hoping to work, it must correctly identify the core area, the area of the greatest vulnerability of the targeted country - its centre of gravity. Needless to say our country's greatest vulnerability today is the lack of 'political will'. We would not want any non-state actors to hit us at a time when politics in Pakistan is all over the place. Autocracy in Pakistan is already being judged by the outside world for lack of tolerance, violations of human rights, political oppression and strong curbs on public freedom and liberty. Military response to the asymmetric threats provides short-term tactical gains but result in long-term problems. Ask Britain, the Netherlands and Canada that provided combat troops for NATO when it took over in 2005 the responsibility to fight in Afghanistan. Having no experience of conducting counter-insurgency operations, these countries learnt value lessons at an unintended cost when their ordeal ended and the NATO combat operations finally ended in Afghanistan in 2014. Even one can write about the cost Russia paid for its military response to the Chechnya's threat in the 90s, as despite over 200,000 death Chechens kept visiting the Russian heartland. These examples show us that fighting a war against a tactic rather than developing a clear plan to defeat a strategy can play in the hands of the enemy. Even the 9/11 attack and the disproportionate US response show how such a response creates new dilemmas such as military interventions, preemptive wars, homeland defence and peacekeeping and peace promoting operations. All of them are avoidable if you don't respond to a tactics but demonstrate patience to create a sound strategy to deal with it. It is famously said "give a small boy a hammer and he will find that everything he encounters need pounding" or in other words "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you will treat everything as if it was a nail". In my humble opinion the best tool to utilise to work with Afghanistan is diplomacy and that can only come from politicians who conduct politics on the basis of formulation of a sound government that has the popular approval of the people. Those that imagine that a military response can create more security must realise that paradoxically it creates more insecurity. COMMENTS Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see ourAkari Therapeutics (NASDAQ:AKTX) Share Price Crosses Below 50-Day Moving Average – Here’s Why
It was no different for Jimmy Carter in the early 1970s. It took meeting several presidential candidates and then encouragement from an esteemed elder statesman before the young governor, who had never met a president himself, saw himself as something bigger. He announced his White House bid on December 12 1974, amid fallout from the Vietnam War and the resignation of Richard Nixon. Then he leveraged his unknown, and politically untainted, status to become the 39th president. That whirlwind path has been a model, explicit and otherwise, for would-be contenders ever since. “Jimmy Carter’s example absolutely created a 50-year window of people saying, ‘Why not me?’” said Steve Schale, who worked on President Barack Obama’s campaigns and is a long-time supporter of President Joe Biden. Mr Carter’s journey to high office began in Plains, Georgia where he received end-of-life care decades after serving as president. David Axelrod, who helped to engineer Mr Obama’s four-year ascent from state senator to the Oval Office, said Mr Carter’s model is about more than how his grassroots strategy turned the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary into his springboard. “There was a moral stain on the country, and this was a guy of deep faith,” Mr Axelrod said. “He seemed like a fresh start, and I think he understood that he could offer something different that might be able to meet the moment.” Donna Brazile, who managed Democrat Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, got her start on Mr Carter’s two national campaigns. “In 1976, it was just Jimmy Carter’s time,” she said. Of course, the seeds of his presidential run sprouted even before Mr Nixon won a second term and certainly before his resignation in August 1974. In Mr Carter’s telling, he did not run for governor in 1966, he lost, or in 1970 thinking about Washington. Even when he announced his presidential bid, neither he nor those closest to him were completely confident. “President of what?” his mother, Lillian, replied when he told her his plans. But soon after he became governor in 1971, Mr Carter’s team envisioned him as a national player. They were encouraged in part by the May 31 Time magazine cover depicting Mr Carter alongside the headline “Dixie Whistles a Different Tune”. Inside, a flattering profile framed Mr Carter as a model “New South” governor. In October 1971, Carter ally Dr Peter Bourne, an Atlanta physician who would become US drug tsar, sent his politician friend an unsolicited memo outlining how he could be elected president. On October 17, a wider circle of advisers sat with Mr Carter at the Governor’s Mansion to discuss it. Mr Carter, then 47, wore blue jeans and a T-shirt, according to biographer Jonathan Alter. The team, including Mr Carter’s wife Rosalynn, who died aged 96 in November 2023, began considering the idea seriously. “We never used the word ‘president’,” Mr Carter recalled upon his 90th birthday, “but just referred to national office”. Mr Carter invited high-profile Democrats and Washington players who were running or considering running in 1972, to one-on-one meetings at the mansion. He jumped at the chance to lead the Democratic National Committee’s national campaign that year. The position allowed him to travel the country helping candidates up and down the ballot. Along the way, he was among the Southern governors who angled to be George McGovern’s running mate. Mr Alter said Mr Carter was never seriously considered. Still, Mr Carter got to know, among others, former vice president Hubert Humphrey and senators Henry Jackson of Washington, Eugene McCarthy of Maine and Mr McGovern of South Dakota, the eventual nominee who lost a landslide to Mr Nixon. Mr Carter later explained he had previously defined the nation’s highest office by its occupants immortalised by monuments. “For the first time,” Mr Carter told The New York Times, “I started comparing my own experiences and knowledge of government with the candidates, not against ‘the presidency’ and not against Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. It made it a whole lot easier”. Adviser Hamilton Jordan crafted a detailed campaign plan calling for matching Mr Carter’s outsider, good-government credentials to voters’ general disillusionment, even before Watergate. But the team still spoke and wrote in code, as if the “higher office” were not obvious. It was reported during his campaign that Mr Carter told family members around Christmas 1972 that he would run in 1976. Mr Carter later wrote in a memoir that a visit from former secretary of state Dean Rusk in early 1973 affirmed his leanings. During another private confab in Atlanta, Mr Rusk told Mr Carter plainly: “Governor, I think you should run for president in 1976.” That, Mr Carter wrote, “removed our remaining doubts.” Mr Schale said the process is not always so involved. “These are intensely competitive people already,” he said of governors, senators and others in high office. “If you’re wired in that capacity, it’s hard to step away from it.” “Jimmy Carter showed us that you can go from a no-name to president in the span of 18 or 24 months,” said Jared Leopold, a top aide in Washington governor Jay Inslee’s unsuccessful bid for Democrats’ 2020 nomination. “For people deciding whether to get in, it’s a real inspiration,” Mr Leopold continued, “and that’s a real success of American democracy”.
QT Marshall On Who Helped Him Come Up With Diss Track For Big Boom! AJ
Nick Kyrgios says positive tests for duo are ‘disgusting’ and ‘a horrible look’
